CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 11 avril 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                          Application No. 23715/94                             S.P., D.P. and A.T.                                   against                             the United Kingdom                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                         (adopted on 11 April 1997)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  Page   INTRODUCTION .............................................       1   PART I:    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .........................       3   PART II:   SOLUTION REACHED ...............................       4                                INTRODUCTION   1.     This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by S.P., D.P. and A.T. against the United Kingdom on 3 September 1993.   It was registered on 18 March 1994 under file No. 23715/94.         The applicant was represented before the Commission by Mr. Luke Clements, a solicitor practising in Hereford. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms. Susan Dickson of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   2.     On 20 May 1996, the Commission declared the application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides:         "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to       it:         a.   it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake       together with the representatives of the parties an examination       of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the       effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all       necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the       Commission;         b.   it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the       parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement       of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined       in this Convention."   3.     The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 11 April 1997 adopted this Report which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   4.     The following members were present when the Report was adopted:              Mr.    S. TRECHSEL, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   5.     The applicants, two brothers and their half-brother, are British citizens born in 1983, 1984 and 1988 and are resident in Herefordshire.         The first applicant S.P. and the second applicant D.P. were made wards of court on 7 July 1986 on grounds, inter alia, that their father had been involved in abusing another child. S.P and D.P. were placed with foster parents, Mr. and Mrs. O., where they remained for 15 months and a strong bond of affection grew up between them and the foster parents.         On 1 October 1987, the brothers were returned to live with their mother R. who was living with another man, T. On 8 August 1988, A.T. (the third applicant) was born, his parents being R. and T.   The relationship between R. and T. was violent.   In April 1991, R. sought refuge with the children in a home for battered women.         Concern arose in the home as to the degree of neglect of the children. On 3 August 1991 the children were found at night on their own outside a pub. On 5 August 1991, R. was evicted from the home and the children taken into care by Hereford and Worcester County Council ("the Council"). They were placed with temporary foster parents.         On 6 November 1991, an interim care and control order was granted by the High Court to the Council.         The intention of the Council at this time was that the children should remain in permanent care and be returned to live with Mr. and Mrs. O., their first foster parents. The children, particularly A.T., were however becoming increasingly attached to their current foster parents as time passed.         On 14 October 1992, the principal provisions of the Children Act 1991 came into force. This had the effect that children who were wards of court automatically were placed in local authority care and the wardship discharged. Since the matter concerning the applicants had not been concluded at this date, the High Court proceeded on 6 October 1992 to de-ward the children on an undertaking by the Council to commence care proceedings under section 31 of the Children Act 1989.         Mr. Luke Clements was at this stage appointed solicitor to represent the children in the proceedings. He made several representations to the Court, expressing his concern that the case was not progressing and that it was imperative for the welfare of the children that they move to a permanent placement as soon as possible.         On 8 March 1993, a directions appointment was obtained before a High Court judge, who accepted that the case had been allowed to drift along through the fault of the court. He made an interim care order, which became final on 19 March 1993.         Following the order, the children were placed by the Council with Mr. and Mrs O., who had maintained contact with them.   6.     The applicants complained of the unnecessary   delay in the proceedings, which caused them considerable suffering and uncertainty as to their future and, in the case of A. T., gave rise to conflicting attachments. They invoked Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   7.     Following its decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   8.     In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   9.     Between May 1996 and December 1996 there were discussions between the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case.   10.    By letter dated 4 December 1996, the applicants accepted the offer of the Government of 21 November 1996 to settle the case on the basis of an ex gratia payment to the applicants of £ 3 000, payment of reasonable legal costs and the Government's confirmation that they are taking steps to implement the recommendations made by Dame Margaret Booth DBE in her report investigating the delay in Children Act cases and reviewing the administrative procedures for listing cases ("Avoiding Delay in Children Act Cases"), published July 1996).   11.    At its session on 11 April 1997, the Commission found that the parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.   It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   12.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.       H.C. KRÜGER                                    S. TRECHSEL      Secretary                                      President   to the Commission                             of the Commission